An e-book by climate skeptic Roy Spencer is outselling the follow-up to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, and it's not even close.

Washington Times:

A self-published e-book by a leading climate skeptic challenging the science behind Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Sequel" is outselling the film's companion book on Amazon.

Mr. Gore's book was ranked 16,459th among paid Amazon e-books as of midday Friday, while the e-book "An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy," was ranked 328th.

The 81-page rebuttal was written by climatologist Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who criticized the Gore movie and book as "chock-full of bad science, bad policy, and factual errors."

In a head-to-head matchup in the Amazon category of climatology, the Spencer book was ranked first Thursday while Mr. Gore's handbook came in 11th.

The comparison isn't entirely scientific. Mr. Spencer's e-book is the more recent release, appearing on Amazon last week, while Mr. Gore's was published July 25 by Rodale Books.

Mr. Gore's book is also available in paperback and audio, which has presumably cut into his Kindle sales, while Mr. Spencer's is only available in e-book form.

At the same time, Mr. Spencer self-published his rebuttal with no paid advertising, while "An Inconvenient Sequel" benefited from the film's publicity blitz by Paramount Pictures and Mr. Gore's own international promotional tour.

"Maybe people are finally wising up to Mr. Gore," Mr. Spencer said on his Global Warming blog.

"An Inconvenient Deception" was also ranked first in Kindle short reads for science and math, and first in the environment category.

Gore's book will almost certainly outdo Spencer's in total sales.  But that's hardly the point.  The strong sales of Spencer's e-book show that people want to understand all sides of the global warming debate and have not been taken in by the climate hysterics' narrative that the "science is settled" or that all skeptics are tools of the fossil fuel industry.

Another positive note: Since Gore's book and film are tanking, it will be harder for him to find people to invest in his next media venture.  Hollywood, even committed liberals, don't usually invest in properties with an excellent chance of failure.  Nobody wants to lose money, and Gore will face a lot more skepticism the next time he wants to make a film.

True believers will continue to treat Gore as a seer.  But for many people who read Spencer's critique, there will be a lot more questions about Gore's knowledge and motivations than there were previously.